On Jun 5, 11:17*am, ScottW2 wrote:
On Jun 5, 8:45*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On Jun 5, 10:17*am, ScottW2 wrote:
On Jun 4, 1:26*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On Jun 4, 2:57*pm, ScottW2 wrote:
On Jun 4, 12:37*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On Jun 4, 1:37*pm, ScottW2 wrote:
On Jun 3, 11:27*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
The defense official said Wednesday that a military investigation
faulted some of the actions of American troops in air strikes May 4
that killed dozens of Afghan civilians in Farah province.
"Errors were made" in the attack, the official acknowledged on
condition of anonymity, discussing one of the preliminary findings on
an incident that has strained relations between Washington and Kabul
and bred deep resentment among the Afghan people. Civilian deaths in
Afghanistan have also enraged Muslims worldwide.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090604/...us_afghanistan
2pid will say "yes", that the tactic used is entirely circumstantial.
I say "no" and at least two incoming commanding general officers agree
with me.
Oh well, I'm sure 2pid's 'differing POV' is equally valid. LoL.
*It pretty sad that you stoop to such gross misrepresentations of what
our
military commanders have actually said.
No misrepresentation at all, 2pid. They both agree with me.
"Maj. Gen. Curtis Scaparrotti, commander of the 82nd Airborne
Division, responded that he planned to use close air support for
troops only when needed to protect them and to complete the mission."
What part of this statement says the use of air support does not
depend upon the circumstances of the situation? * *Hint: Nothing
Um, indeed there is, 2pid. There are two conditions necessary in his
statement. It's an "and" statement, not an "or" statement.
*So now you're going to claim that troops in danger won't get air
support
when the mission is no longer capable of being completed.
Huh? Where did I say that? Or are you arguing with the general now
(and, BTW, misrepresenting what he said)?
*I've pointed out your ridiculous misinterpretation of what
the general said. *Obviously you now see your mistake.
I made no mistake, 2pid. You imbecilically tried to create a strawman
(as usual).
*"Two conditions". *That was obviously wrong and you know it.
That was what the general said, 2pid. I even included the quote for
you. There are two times he will use CAS.
But who cares? 2pid, here's the dealio: going all the way back to the
beginning you have been wrong. Period.
Blowing up a building with at most a few snipers in it is wrong.
Dropping bombs on targets that you do not have eyes on and absolute
target identification is wrong. Petreus gets that. Understanding that
helped turn Iraq around, at least for now. It appears the McChrystal
gets it too. The only "obvious" thing here is that you do not.
Petreus greatly *increased* the risk to US soldiers. Perhaps you'd
like to claim that General Petreus "shows disregard for troop safety".
LoL.
As is your norm you want to nitpick and create strawmen to prove how
"right" you are. You haven't been "right" since day one. That's
because you don't kow what you're talking about, but you have a right
to your 'differing POV'. LoL.
Look at your subject header, 2pid. Understanding the mission,
understanding how counterinsurgencies work and understanding strategic
and tactical issues does not mean that I "disregard troop safety". I
simply realize it isn't always the paramount concern in this case.
Are there times when CAS is necessary/useful/appropriate? I've never
said otherwise, dum-dum. Ever. LoL.
Your a imbecile.
"Troops in danger" includes all troops in Iraq and all troops in
Afghanistan. That's why they are drawing "imminent danger/hostile
fire" pay.
* Lets argue what "in" means next. *That'll be fun. LoL.
There's no need. All soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan are in danger.
Do you disagree? LoL.
I'll make you a bet: troops in a firefight will not automatically get
CAS.
*Nor will they be automatically denied unless it serves to complete
the mission. *It will be a decsion based upon the circumstances
at the time as I've always said.
OK, fine, 2pid. The problem is that your "depending on the
circumstances" has always been very, very wrong. (See: 2-3 snipers in
a building as an example). Petreus understood that protecting
civilians *is* one of the paramount considerations in an operation
like this. Let me guess: you 'think' the troop surge was entirely
responsible for conditions in Iraq changing. LoL.
We blew up a bunch of civilians, 2pid. You indicated that isn't a big
deal in your 'mind'. It is to me (because I do want success in
Afghanistan). So tell me, did this enhance our chances of overall
mission accomplishment in Afghanistan? Was there absolute target
identification? Was this episode productive or counterproductive in
your 'mind'? Is this the best way to fight an insurgency, 2pid?
In a counterinsurgency, 2pid, the statement "there was some
regrettable collateral damage" may very well mean winning or losing.
We're not winning right now. Remember this?
"...discussing one of the preliminary findings on
an incident that has strained relations between Washington and Kabul
and bred deep resentment among the Afghan people. Civilian deaths in
Afghanistan have also enraged Muslims worldwide."
Duh.
All I can say is I dearly hope for the sake of our troops, you're
not in the decision path.
Guess what, 2pid? FA officers usually are. That's because we get
things you apparently do not and we are trained and have experience on
things you do not. LoL.
What you do not seem to "get" is that the mission in both Iraq and
Afghanistan is to win over the civilian populations. Killing them or
making them question their safety is counterproductive. If you haven't
learned anything from Petreus' tour in Iraq at least take that away.
A soldier in a firefight will almost *always* request FA or CAS, 2pid.
An infantry commander taking fire will almost *always* request FA or
CAS.
While it's a hard thing to do, frequently you just have to say
"mission denied". There are usually many other alternatives available.
And there is no such thing as a "mission [that] is no longer
capable of being completed".
I see....so you're still hunting for Osama at Tora Bora. *LoL.
What a moron.
The Battle of Tora Bora was a military engagement that took place in
Afghanistan in December 2001, during the opening stages of the war in
that country launched following the 9/11 attacks on the United States.
The U.S. and its allies believed that al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden
was hiding in the rugged mountains at Tora Bora, but despite
overrunning the Taliban and al-Qaeda positions they failed to kill or
capture him.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tora_Bora
The battle of Tora Bora was a successful mission, 2pid. We captured
it. Missions start and end all of the time. That one ended years ago.
If you're arguing that we shouldn't have ended that mission and
followed on with a more detailed search mission, or that we should
have used our own forces instead of locals, I wouldn't disagree.
(I see why you can't let ABSCAM go after 30 years though. You don't
see that some things have a start and a finish. LoL.)
A foot patrol is "mission", dum-dum. So is a supply convoy. When the
patrol or convoy reaches their destination or returns that mission is
over, 2pid. But a mission doesn't complete itself, dum-dum. A mission
doesn't have "capabilities", imbecile. LoL.
Anyway, there is not a mission that the US military cannot accomplish.
What happens is that the cost becomes prohibitive, political
considerations or boundaries enter in, or accomplishing that mission
becomes counterproductive to the overall goal and the Commander's
intent.
You never answered, 2pid. Would you like me to check into whether an
out-of-shape person of below average intelligence can still serve? LoL.